Search This Blog

On the possibility of a recession, again

So the yield curve is really flat, not inverted, but really flat, and that has many (or here) afraid of an impending recession. The fear is basically associated to the inverted yield curve (see below: when the blue line is above the red and green lines, there is an inverted yield curve, with a high short rate and lower longer rates, signaling a recession) which is really flat, and the danger that the Fed will rise the rate in the next meeting in a few weeks.

Yield Curve (click to enlarge)

Blanchard, cited in one of the WSJ pieces above, thinks that the Fed might be forced to hike interest rates, since the economy, presumably is close to the natural rate, that is, to full employment and inflation is a danger. Note that Blanchard is suggesting that the 2% target should be upheld, even though he was against this when he was at the IMF.

I think this is misguided on many levels. On the theoretical front the reliance on the natural rate is problematic, of course. The notion that we are close to full employment is doubtful to say the least, given that participation rate has not recovered much at all since the last recession. Real wages have not grown that much either, and with lower commodity prices the risk of higher inflation (if one is concerned not just with core inflation) is not particularly high. The FOMC should leave the short run rate unchanged. But that is not enough. The Eccles mantra should be repeated more often. Monetary policy is like pushing on a string, in a situation like this one. We need fiscal stimulus.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the i…

So, a few days ago, someone (my bad, can't remember who did it) posted on FB a piece (in Portuguese and behind a wall; but this post is mostly about the role of historical comparisons really, so you can skip the piece altogether) on the Brazilian National Development Bank (Portuguese acronym is BNDES, btw) and how it lend more than the US government with the Marshall Plan. The guy did a back of the envelope calculation (I did check and bringing the US$ 13 billion to present value, with the GDP deflator would be about 106 billion, roughly what he calculated) and concluded that the BNDES lending, which was higher, was very ineffective. Hm. Where to start?

Sure one can assume that the important thing is just to calculate how much money was lent in current values and one gets a reasonable picture of the impact. However, it should be clear that the US was lending dollars, and access to imports that were vital for the survival of Europe. Harder to put a dollar figure on that. But a bet…